Vive la révolution Next stop the USA

[eastcoast_bsc]

Here in the USA it seems that socialism is becoming popular with the millenials but in France a country with a long history of socialism Paris is burning.

The protests started a few weeks ago, sparked by a fuel tax announced by Macron as part of his policy to curb diesel usage and invest in greener technology. The tax was to start next month. For French citizens living in rural areas, who tend to rely on cars and trucks to get around, this tax would be particularly painful.

And it comes at a difficult time. France’s economic environment is anemic at best. Current economic growth is almost nonexistent; gross domestic product growth will end 2018 at around 1.6 percent. (The United States is running about twice that rate.)

French unemployment is over 9 percent, which has changed little since 1996. (The U.S. unemployment rate is less than 4 percent.)

Despite the low economic growth and high unemployment, taxes in France are still high. In addition to income tax, there is a 20 percent value-added tax on most goods and services. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s most recent report on government taxes, France came in the highest, at 46 — 2 percent of the economy. The announcement of yet another tax burden was simply too much for many to bear. So they took to the streets.

Paris burns, with lessons for America


I was just reading another piece where UN officials were calling fir a hardline against those who refuse to comply with the climate taxation scheme. They also called for it to be illegal to deny climate change.

 

[Not David]

The French are just terrible with democracy.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

The French are just terrible with democracy.

As are the British and EU.

 

[Not David]

As are the British and EU.

I'm saying that because this is their fifth Republic.

 

[JIMINZ]

I'm saying that because this is their fifth Republic.

Well when you try to run a Democracy, with a Socialistic Ideology it don't quite come out the same as a Democratic Society.

Sounds like Republicans vs. Democrats.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I'm saying that because this is their fifth Republic.

I mentioned GB because of all their recent free speech restrictions.

 

[parousia70]

Well when you try to run a Democracy, with a Socialistic Ideology it don't quite come out the same as a Democratic Society.

A Democracy with a socialist ideology IS a democratic society.

A Democracy with a Capitalist Ideology is ASLO a democratic society.

A Dictatorship with a Capitalist ideology is NOT a democratic society.

The economic system does not define the political as much as you might think.

Capitalism does not by any means guarantee democracy... in fact, they really don't work together at all in Capitalism's purest form...

Capitalism does not like Democracy.
Democracy is antithetical to Capitalism's Goals and purpose.

 

[JIMINZ]

A Democracy with a socialist ideology IS a democratic society.

A Democracy with a Capitalist Ideology is ASLO a democratic society.

A Dictatorship with a Capitalist ideology is NOT a democratic society.

The economic system does not define the political as much as you might think.

Capitalism does not by any means guarantee democracy... in fact, they really don't work together at all in Capitalism's purest form...

Capitalism does not like Democracy.
Democracy is antithetical to Capitalism's Goals and purpose.

I disagree.

A Socialist Society, does not afford to it's Citizens the same benefits as the Democratic Society.

Did you ever hear of the U.S.S.R, China, Korea, Cuba?

Just because there are elections in a Socialist Society, does not guarantee Freedom, they are Dictatorships, that is what is wrong with attempting to introduce Socialism, into a Democratic Society, it may sound good at the beginning, that everyone would be equal, but if you looked at all of those Countries I listed, they are all Dictatorships, and the people of these Countries are in no way equal to those in power, (Party Members) therefore anyone who is not a Party Member are persecuted.

I haven't even touched on the earnings of the people because, that is not what is being spoken of, the Socio Economic part of either Society is irrelevant to this particular discussion, it is a field all of it's own.

 

[parousia70]

I disagree.

A Socialist Society, does not afford to it's Citizens the same benefits as the Democratic Society.

Did you ever hear of the U.S.S.R, China, Korea, Cuba?

Ever heard of Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden?

You do realize Social Democracy is a thing, and it works, right? And It is entirely different from Dictatorship Solcialist countries like Venezuela for example... And again There are authoritarian, Olagarchic capitalist countries like Russia where Capitalism there in no way guarantees Freedom.

The mere existence of countries like Sweeden, Finland and the like on it's own disproves the theory that introducing socialism into a Democracy begins and begats an irreversible slide into dictatorship, not to mention the standard of living and overall health and happiness of the citizenry of the Nordic Model countries are rated the highest in the world.
In Contrast, Capitalism, unfettered by Democracy (as Capitalists ALL prefer) begats and begins an irreversible slide into Oligarchy, feudalism and fascist dictatorship.

I think you may be barking up the wrong tree.
Democracy, not the free market, is the vehicle best suited to raise the standard of living of all peoples everywhere, regardless of economic structure.

Just because there are elections in a Socialist Society, does not guarantee Freedom, they are Dictatorships, that is what is wrong with attempting to introduce Socialism, into a Democratic Society, it may sound good at the beginning, that everyone would be equal, but if you looked at all of those Countries I listed, they are all Dictatorships, and the people of these Countries are in no way equal to those in power, (Party Members) therefore anyone who is not a Party Member are persecuted.

Can you demonstrate how this theory has applied or does apply to the Nordic Model Social Democracies I listed?

 

[parousia70]

It's curious to me that the very Americans who rail against any form of socialism entering our country, are wholly dependent on, and even cheer on and profess their undying support for, the Most Socialist Model of Collective Living and Social welfare this country has ever known.

The US Military.

"Every day before dawn, brave men and women of different races and backgrounds rise as one, united by a common cause. They march together in formation, kept in step by their voices joined in song. These workers leave their communal housing arrangements and go toil together “in the field.” While they are out doing their day’s labor, their young are cared for in subsidized childcare programs. If they hurt themselves on the job, they can count on universal health care. Right under your nose, on the fenced-in bases you drive past on your way to work or see on the TV news, a successful experiment in collectivization has been going on for years.

The U.S. military is a socialist paradise. Imagine a testing ground where every signature liberal program of the past century has been applied, from racial integration to single-payer health care—then add personal honor, strict hierarchy, and more guns. Like all socialist paradises, the military has been responsible for its share of bloodshed, but it has developed one of the only working models of collective living and social welfare that this country has ever known.

Millions of people on military bases live in communal arrangements. They participate in centrally run programs that govern the most basic and fundamental aspects of their lives, from their housing and children’s educations to where and how they shop for food.

Service members and their families live for free on base. People living off base are given a stipend to cover their housing costs. They shop in commissaries and post exchanges where prices for food and basic goods are considerably lower than at civilian stores. Troops and their families count on high-quality education and responsive universal health care. They expect to be safe at home, as bases, on average, have less violence than American cities of comparable size. And residents enjoy a wide range of amenities—not just restaurants and movie theaters but fishing ponds, camp sites, and golf courses built for their use.

Of course, some bases are better than others. But even the most austere provides a comprehensive network of social welfare provisions and a safety net that does not differentiate between a junior employee and an executive.

The pay difference, and thus the lifestyle difference, between a junior troop and a senior general is a small fraction of the disparity that separates the salary of an average worker from that of a top CEO in the private sector. (10-1 vs. over 300-1)

And speaking of management and floor workers, as stratified as the military’s rank system is, it is also one of the country’s last engines of social mobility. A young enlistee from a poor background with no higher education can rise through the ranks. The military is one of the only institutions in America, maybe the only one, where the mailroom-to-boardroom scenario still happens often enough to be more than just a self-serving myth."

Railing against American Socialism while you cheer on and depend upon the most socialist institution this country has ever seen to protect you, is akin to carrying a sign at a Right-wing protest that says "Keep your government hands off my Medicare"!

The disconnect from reality is truly epic.